Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/2006

Home

Page 6 -- May 10, 2006 goB. The ordinance went into effect on May 17, 2003. Two weeks later, Wylie's neighbors woke up to the sound of dump trucks and heavy equipment extract- ing and hauling away soil. The township zoning inspector went to Wylie's property and, because mining violated the new zoning ordinance, ordered it to stop. However, Wylie refused to comply. The township sued, and the trial court ruled in Wylie's favor. During the hearing, Wylie produced witnesses who testified that Wylie had obtained a mining permit from the state department of natural resources and used an exca- vator to strip topsoil on April 21, 2003. Witnesses also testified that on April 26, 2003, Wylie employees returned to the site and removed between 4,000 to 6,000 'cubic yards of topsoil, some of which was sold and some of which was stored. Based on this testimony, the court ruled that Wylie had established a prior nonconforming use. The township appealed, arguing that the earlier use of the property was not substantial enough tb support the existence of a prior nonconforming use. DECISION: Affirmed. There was a "substantial use" of the property that supported the prior nonconforming use. In common usage, the word "substantial" meant several things, including considerable in quantity, not illusory, and most, but not all, of a certain thing. The work that Wylie's witnesses described that was performed on April 21 could likely have been classified as considerable, not illusory, and consisting mostly, but perhaps not wholly, of mining and excavation. In addition, the activity described as having occurred on April 26 constituted complete or nearly complete mining or excavation. Based on the testimony of Wylie's witnesses, there was substantial use of the property as a mining and excavation site prior to the institution of the zoning restriction. see also: Baker v. Blevins, 162 Ohio App.3d 258 (2005). see also: Union Township Board of Trustees v. Old 74 Corp., 738 N.E. 2d 477 (2OOO). Variance -- Nonconforming structure cannot be altered without variance Homeowner claims home renovation does not require variance Citation: Moon v. Madison Board of Zoning Appeals, Superior Court of Connecticut, Nos. CV040490740 and CV044004407 (2006) CONNECTICUT (03/13/06) -- Moon owned a parcel of land in Madison, Conn. The land was in an RU-2 zoning district, which required a 40 foot front-yard setback. Moon's house was only setback 18.8 feet, and therefore his property was nonconforming. 78 ~ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 5424048.